聞分館君 Ask BunKanKun

唐玄宗御註道德真經

10 min read

Text ID
KR5c0059
Date
732–735
Dynasty
唐

Táng Xuán zōng yù zhù Dàodé zhēn jīng 唐玄宗御註道德真經

Imperial Commentary on the True Scripture of the Way and Its Virtue by Táng Xuánzōng

by 李隆基 (Lǐ Lóngjī; Táng Xuánzōng 唐玄宗, r. 712–756) — yù zhù 御註 (imperial commentary), composed 732–735 CE

The personal commentary on the Dàodé jīng ([[KR5c0045|Dàodé zhēn jīng]]) by Táng Xuánzōng 唐玄宗 (Lǐ Lóngjī 李隆基, r. 712–756), composed in the years 732–735 CE — a cardinal document of mature-Táng imperial patronage of Daoism, and one of the two surviving imperial-authored Dàodé jīng commentaries (together with Míng Tàizǔ’s KR5c0058, c. 1374–75) in the Daozang. Preserved in four juàn in the Zhèngtǒng Dàozàng (DZ 677 / CT 677, Dòngshén bù, Yù jué lèi 洞神部玉訣類). Xuánzōng later composed an extensive subcommentary (疏 shū) on his own commentary, preserved as DZ 678 Táng Xuánzōng yù zhì Dàodé zhēn jīng shū 唐玄宗御製道德真經疏 in ten juàn.

About the work

The commentary is in four juàn, split into two juàn for the Dào piān 道篇 (chs. 1–37) and two for the Dé piān 德篇 (chs. 38–81) — a distinctive structural innovation for which Xuánzōng was later criticised in DZ 701 Dàodé zhēn jīng kǒu yì 道德真經口義 (the division was not maintained by Xuánzōng himself in his later subcommentary DZ 678, which reverts to a 6- or 8-juàn arrangement). The text is preceded by the emperor’s own personal preface (xù 序), in which Xuánzōng — with characteristic classical-literary polish — laments the insufficiency of prior commentaries (“Shǔ Yán” 蜀嚴 i.e. Yán Zūn 嚴遵 of Shǔ, still “diseased”; Héshàng Gōng 河上公 “perhaps too reductive”), commits himself to the production of a new imperial commentary as a contribution to the dynasty’s founding myth of descent from Lǎozǐ, and invites scholars, Daoist and Buddhist clergy, the civil service, and the common people to correct his errors. A striking line closes the preface: dàn wèi xià mín yān zhī 但畏下民焉知之 — “I fear only that the people below should not know it.”

Philosophical character

Isabelle Robinet’s notice in Schipper & Verellen (2004, 1:285–86, DZ 677) gives the definitive modern account of the commentary’s philosophical character. Xuánzōng was initiated into Daoism in 721 by Sīmǎ Chéngzhēn 司馬承禎 (646–735, Twelfth Shàngqīng Patriarch), the author of Dào tǐ lùn 道體論 (DZ 1035); and the commentary bears Sīmǎ’s strong imprint. Robinet identifies several distinctive themes:

  • The Chóngxuán 重玄 (“twofold mystery”) school influence. The mystic theme of total forgetfulness (jiān wàng 兼忘), the renunciation of all material, intellectual, and social possessions, the rejection of desire and learning (1.14b; Lǎozǐ chs. 23, 27), and even of purity (1.18b) — all hallmark themes of the Chóngxuán tradition as developed by Chéng Xuányīng 成玄英 (early Táng) and continued by Sīmǎ Chéngzhēn. The commentary is accordingly one of the most important surviving witnesses to the mature Chóngxuán reading of the Lǎozǐ.
  • The Guō Xiàng 郭象 / Chéng Xuányīng 成玄英 doctrine of fēn 分 (“allotted fate”, 4.4b–6b) is adopted and coupled with the correlative doctrine of yòng 用 (“function”, “proper use”) — “to each his proper function” (yīn yòng 因用; chs. 21, 23, 28). This ties the commentary explicitly to the xuánxué 玄學 tradition in its ChéngGuōChóngxuán line.
  • Positive defence of Confucian virtues. Unusually for a Daoist commentary, Xuánzōng defends — and partially incorporates — Confucian values into his reading. The virtue of rén 仁 (humanity) is reinterpreted as “undifferentiated love” (a reading later vigorously opposed by Zhū Xī 朱熹, 1130–1200); the rituals (lǐ 禮) are presented as “a beginning of the return to the Dào when conduct has become inadequate” (ch. 38). The commentary thereby pursues the synthesis of Daoist and Confucian metaphysics that would shape the eventual emergence of Sòng Neo-Confucianism.
  • The metaphysical distinction between cū yǒu 粗有 (“coarser planes of being”) and miào wú 妙無 (“the marvelous plane of non-being”) — a distinction inspired by Buddhism but adopted by the Chóngxuán commentators. Xuánzōng nevertheless balances this dualism by reasserting the interrelation of wú and yǒu (esp. 1.12b, 16b, 24b) and of absolute vs. relative truth (chs. 25, 40).
  • The doctrine of the zhōng qì 中氣 (“median qì”) — “the qì of Harmony and the One, which is the source of yīn and yáng”, the “marvelous qì” that the adept preserves within (chs. 39, 52).

Classical intertexts

The commentary is densely intertextual. Robinet notes particularly heavy citation from the Yìjīng 易經, the Chūnqiū 春秋, and the Zhuāngzǐ — and through this reliance on the classics, she proposes, Xuánzōng’s commentary becomes a critical link between the Xuánxué 玄學 tradition and the emerging Neo-Confucian synthesis. The commentary quotes the famous passage of Yì xì cí that would become a Neo-Confucian cornerstone: xíng ér shàng zhě wèi zhī dào; xíng ér xià zhě wèi zhī qì 形而上者謂之道，形而下者謂之器 (“That which is above form is called the Dào; that which is below form is called an implement”). Additionally, certain phrases of the Héshàng Gōng commentary are reproduced textually (chs. 12, 15, 17, 22, 36, 41), but the overall interpretive approach is significantly different.

Prefaces

The emperor’s personal Preface (序) opens the work. In it, Xuánzōng gives his rationale for composing the commentary:

“Of old the Yuán shèng 元聖 [the Primordial Sage, i.e. Lǎozǐ] expounded the xuán yán 玄言 (‘mysterious words’), establishing thereby the true tradition for later generations. The remaining texts have been of profound essence, but have somewhat erred in grasping their purport. Shǔ Yán [of Yán Zūn] has not avoided disease; Héshàng Gōng, on the other hand, has rendered the meaning too reductively; the rest has faded into obscurity… How, then, should our imperial ancestor’s profound meaning come to be lost? I, humbly, of thin and shallow learning, have always been moved by this literature… Each time I have found a leisurely moment I have taken up the ‘dark barrier’ of the text and noted my impressions; these I have now gathered into notes (jiān zhù 箋注). Not that I claim to have produced the doctrine of a school, but only to have supplied what was omitted. The writing is now closed. I seek counsel from the assembled nobles and common people, as well as from the two gates of Daoism and Buddhism, whoever is able to correct me — after the manner of Bǔ Shāng 卜商 [Zǐxià 子夏 correcting Confucius], or of Zuǒ shì 左氏 [Zuǒ Qiūmíng 左丘明 correcting the Chūnqiū]. I am thirsty for good counsel, and my heart is empty [to receive it]; any who speak in its spirit I shall reward richly.”

The preface closes with the plea that critics speak directly, even at the risk of displeasing the emperor, and with Xuánzōng’s fear that the people below should not know the teaching.

Abstract

The commentary is historically and philosophically central to the mature-Táng Daoist tradition. Its composition between 732 and 735 places it in the middle years of the Kāiyuán 開元 era (713–741) — the high point of Xuánzōng’s cultural patronage, when he gathered the great Shàngqīng patriarch Sīmǎ Chéngzhēn at court, promulgated the canonisation of the Dàodé jīng and the three other “Daoist true scriptures” (Zhuāngzǐ KR5c0051, Lièzǐ KR5c0049, Kàngcāngzǐ KR5c0050) in 742 (seven years after the commentary’s completion), established the Chóngxuán xué 崇玄學 Daoist examination institutes across the empire, and conducted a decisive reorganisation of the Táng state on lines partly articulated by the commentary.

Beyond its intrinsic philosophical interest, the commentary is a political text in the sense that Zhū Yuánzhāng’s later Míng Tàizǔ commentary (KR5c0058) is: it articulates an imperial-Daoist ideology on the part of a ruling emperor at a moment of fundamental dynastic self-fashioning. The Táng imperial house claimed direct descent from Lǎozǐ (sharing the surname 李 Lǐ), and Xuánzōng’s elaboration of the Dàodé jīng therefore served simultaneously as devotional commentary on an ancestral text and as an articulation of the political-philosophical foundations of the Táng empire.

Per the project’s dating rule, the frontmatter gives 732–735 as the precise composition window per the TC date. Dynasty 唐.

The subcommentary DZ 678 Táng Xuánzōng yù zhì Dàodé zhēn jīng shū 唐玄宗御製道德真經疏, in ten juàn, elaborates the present commentary substantially and in a more discursive register; it has an independent textual history and is catalogued separately. Both Xuánzōng’s commentary and subcommentary inspired a further monumental subcommentary by Dù Guāngtíng 杜光庭 (850–933), DZ 725 Dàodé zhēn jīng guǎng shèng yì 道德真經廣聖義 — the most sustained late-Táng synthesis of the imperial-Daoist interpretive tradition. Xuánzōng’s commentary is also reproduced in several later composite editions: DZ 706 Dàodé zhēn jīng jí zhù 道德真經集註 (collected commentaries); DZ 711 Dàodé zhēn jīng xuán dé zuǎn shū 道德真經玄德纂疏; DZ 724 Dàodé zhēn jīng jí yì 道德真經集義.

Translations and research

  • Schipper, Kristofer, and Franciscus Verellen, eds. The Taoist Canon: A Historical Companion to the Daozang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004, 1:285–86 (DZ 677, I. Robinet). Primary reference.
  • Robinet, Isabelle. Les commentaires du Tao tö king jusqu’au VIIe siècle. Paris: Collège de France, 1977. Foundational study of the pre-Táng Dàodé jīng commentary tradition that Xuánzōng inherits.
  • Fujiwara Takao 藤原高男. “Tō Genso gyosei Dōtoku shin keichū sō kō” 唐玄宗御製道徳真経註疏考. Nihon Chūgoku gakkai hō 21 (1969): 151–62.
  • Imaeda Jirō 今枝二郎. “Genso kōtei no Rōshi chū” 玄宗皇帝の老子注. Dōkyō kenkyū 4 (1971): 32–54.
  • Mugitani Kunio 麥谷邦夫. “Tō Genso Dōtoku shin keichū sō” 唐玄宗道徳真経註疏. In Dōkyō kyōten shiron 道教経典史論, ed. Toshihiko Izutsu, 1988.
  • Hung, William 洪業. “A Bibliographical Controversy at the T’ang Court A.D. 719.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 20 (1957): 74–134.
  • Wáng Zhòngmín 王重民. Lǎozǐ kǎo 老子考. Běijīng: Zhōnghuá shūjú, 1927 (rpt. 1991). Bibliographic survey.
  • Barrett, T. H. Taoism Under the T’ang: Religion and Empire during the Golden Age of Chinese History. London: Wellsweep, 1996. For the broader Kāiyuán–Tiānbǎo 開元天寶 Daoist-political context.

Other points of interest

The commentary constitutes — together with DZ 678 (subcommentary) and DZ 725 (Dù Guāngtíng’s super-subcommentary) — the canonical Táng imperial Dàodé jīng tradition that shaped subsequent Chinese Daoist interpretation for nearly a millennium. Its influence extended beyond Daoism: Sòng Neo-Confucian discussions of the Dàodé jīng (especially those of Zhū Xī) regularly take Xuánzōng’s text as a philosophical benchmark against which to articulate their own positions, and the commentary’s characteristic blending of xuánxué, Chóngxuán, and classical-intertextual approaches became the standard against which later readers measured the Lǎozǐ.

The 42-year gap between the commentary (732–735) and the canonisation of the Dàodé jīng as zhēn jīng (742) is significant: Xuánzōng’s sustained engagement with the text — commentary, subcommentary, and the final canonisation of the four Daoist classics — represents a single, consistent cultural-political project unfolding across the decade. The commentary is the theoretical foundation on which the 742 canonisation is built.

A 1933 printed facsimile of the Daozang edition of DZ 677 is held at Beijing National Library; several modern punctuated critical editions exist in Chinese (e.g. Bā shí yī zhāng zhēn yì 八十一章真義, ed. Lǐ Jiāhuì 李佳慧).

Graph View

Backlinks